In our experience, this is the first time we have seen a journal paper with a “related work” section that does not actually cite any papers and expects the readers to either trust the authors or research the subject by themselves. This is also the first time that we have seen a paper discussing a problem that apparently is general (“about a third” of 122 papers suffers from it) by focusing on just a few papers that share a subset of common authors. What appears even more puzzling is that while , [1]}, ,  share the dataset being criticized in [2]}, the dataset employed in  is from , which is a completely different dataset, and for which Li et al. [2]} clearly claim not to have informationThey clearly state in relation to 's dataset: "We have no way of knowing whether the test sets contained segments from the same blocks that had segments in the corresponding training sets.".
The only thing these papers have in common, is, again, a subset of authors.
